Michael Hranek wrote: Sorry to interrupt the discussion. The Bible is absolutely worthless to anyone who only treats it as a religious decoration such as my unsaved family. Please excuse my aburptness I have an urgent prayer request for any one who would prayer with me. I am writting this in haste. My elderly unsaved mother has had a heart attack and my older unsaved brother just called fearful that, "we are loosing her". Please pray for the mercy of God that I or others might be able to witness to my unsaved family and that they might have the conviction of the Holy Spirit to repent and believe in Jesus Christ. Need to hurry on my way. With the Love of Jesus Christ, Michael Hranek For those who do thank you so much.
The Lord be with you and help you by His Spirit. The Lord have mercy on your dear Mother. I shall be praying dear Bro.
Mike wrote: An eternal and necessary act? An act whereby He is a ground of a second personal subsistence? The procession is His personal property? they put the third person in possession of the divine essence? Sounds a bit like a mystery religion. Maybe it's just gibberish.
Makes me wonder if the Nicene theologians had given equal weight to Christ being eternally "the Word" what notions they would have come up with?
Seems to me that some Christians will accept any philosophical nonsense no matter how remotely connected with the Scriptures, under the guise of fleshing out what they find in the Bible, when what they really mean is that they are adding to the Bible!
That any should think that it is NO dishonor to Christ in his Godhead to think of His personality being "derived" from the Father is remarkable!!
But then to compound the dishonor to the Godhead they conceive that if Christ's personality is derived from the Father then the Holy Ghost's personality must be derived from the Father and the Son!!
Oops! Did I say "derived"? So sorry, I meant "eternally derived". We must avoid a "starting point"! Ha!
Faithlicist wrote: DJC49 being the only person who is trying to straighten out your theology, on the board He is not.
If you really are not djc49 (and I have my doubts) then let me ask you something. What have you written for my benefit that entitles you to say that you have been "trying to straighten out" my theology?
Your last 2 posts demonstrate sufficiently how poor your grasp is of the Bible and of theology and therefore I think I'll pass on any lessons from you!!
No good asking djc49 questions like that. He thinks that "reason" is enough to "flesh out" where the Scripture is silent! After all "reason" is superior to the Bible!!
Faithlicist wrote: Does "Faith" read your Bible? God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are from eternity. Parent-child relationship is revealed by God to mortals. NOT the other way round! Perhaps you need to look down - not up?
Ha! DJC49 don't you feel even a little ashamed using a different moniker every time you feel like taking a shot at me?! I guess not!
Since you can accept notions that by your own admission cannot be demonstrated scripturally, I cannot see that you have any right to brag about having a superior faith.
I am going to make this my last post to you, and it is not really for your benefit anyway. It is to benefit anyone else you might be convinced by your "superior" reasoning (cough!!).
If the titles Father and Son are to be accepted as indicative of familial relations, what about the Holy Ghost?
And if the titles are indicative of personal properties, then why is the Holy Ghost so called? Because He is Holy and the others are not? Because He is a Ghost and the others are not etc.?
Finally, if the title "Son" must inevitably lead to the concept of "begottenness", how does the title "Holy Ghost" inevitably lead to "procession"?
Since being Scriptural does not concern you that much .. we're done!
djc49 wrote: Tell you what *Biblicist*, while you're at it, try PROVING the hypostatic union of Christ from the Bible! You know ... Christ being fully, 100% God and fully, 100% human? Where does the Bible state such a thing in no uncertain terms? It took several Church COUNCILS to piece together, iron out, and define the matter [Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon] -- and ALL in the face of dangerous HERSEY!
So you do admit that you've given up on the Bible. That's all I needed to hear from you. I think we're done!
djc49 wrote: A presumption on MY part?.. YOU are the one who originally brought up the "familial" aspect of the relationship between the Father and Son.. not me! [see YOUR post of 7/21/09 1:56 PM -- the FIRST time "familial" was mentioned on this thread! -- by Y-O-U] [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/comments_view.asp?keyword=familial]]]SEARCH for "familial" on SA Comments[/URL]
And if you can read, which I am beginning to doubt, then you will see that I raised it as a caution against such an understanding!
Biblicist wrote: That says to me that we should take care what we make of these titles....what if this is a complete misunderstanding of why those terms are employed?
djc49 wrote: C) HERE'S where you go astray! He never **BECAME** the Son. He necessarily always WAS.
You are a silly! This is exactly what Nicea is trying to address by the notion of "eternal generation". Sure, by making this generation a necessity in the Godhead and an "eternal" process they overcome the philosophical starting point, but try and prove any of this from the Bible!!
You like these complexities only because it feeds your pride. You can brag that you understand the mysteries of Nicea; even more than a long standing professor of theology like Hodge!
djc49 wrote: D & E) You & Hodge err on the Nicene meaning of "generation"! You make a Nicene strawman to knock down.
The Greek of "only begotten" can equally and properly be translated "one only", and therefore your comment is silly at best.
djc49 wrote: ..*Mike* discounts the (familial?) relational aspect -- which I think is his mistake.
Begging the issue. The familial titles may not be pointing to any familial relations at all. This is just a presumption on your part. Otherwise, you would be forced to explain why the Holy Spirit is on the outside of the family.
Faithful Remnant wrote: people contending for their interpretation of an extrabiblical document.
I understand your reluctance. No one likes an argument. But, the extra biblical document attempts to explain the words "only begotten", which we do find in our bibles. So the controversy is over one's understanding of these words.
Faithful Remnant wrote: Good point, Biblicist. I agree here. Reason can prove God's existence, I believe(in the manner how the Apostle Paul and the psalmus use the beauty and logic of creation and the universe), but we should not put it above the Scriptural record. Have a good day.
I don't suppose that the "clever" people will ever be able to agree on what I said
FR you started on the subject matter of the Trinity but you have been remarkably quiet since! Any views on what is being said?
djc49 wrote: And anyone who has exposited the Scriptures; or who has written commentaries on the Scriptures; or anyone who has preached a sermon based on a verse from Scripture. ANY expansion of the literal words of Scripture is absolutely VERBOTEN and reason must have NO part in our understanding of the same ... so says *Biblicist*!
Good to see you returning under your own moniker.
It may serve your purpose to make false accusations as you have done from the moment that you first wrote to me (I guess this is your calling card ), BUT note carefully, I have said nothing about abandoning reason!! What I have complained of is the elevation of reason above Scripture!
Any reasonable Christian should and will understand the difference between a reasonable inference and a wild conjecture. The Nicene notion of "begotten" is a wild conjecture!
Bible Believing Christian wrote: Ahem....(cough)....!!!! Translation..... "I insist that everything which we believe should be derived directly from Scripture. - Precisely as Biblicist translates it in accordance with his hypothesis."
Hey, DJC49, why did you change your moniker to make that snide remark? Afraid of the light? Afraid that folk will take a dim view of you?
And you're forgetting that I am not the one who is guilty of injecting the whole notion of a literal begetting because of the terms Father/Son!! I leave that sort of thing to the likes of Nicea and Nicene Christians like you who like to elevate reason above the Scriptures!
djc49 wrote: A) It appears that Hodge misinterpreted the word "generate" too.
Really?! You're just too much! So what you're saying basically is that no matter who is quoted opposing your insanity, you are right and they are wrong! Good one!
djc49 wrote: B) You surely must be quite aware that ALL of the Doctrines of Christianity are essentially and necessarily: 1] Biblically based and then 2] Have been further clarified by .. Church Councils in order to COMBAT HERSEY.
A better apology could not be found for foisting any old erroneous view on the masses, elevating reason above Scripture! COMBAT HERESY by adding error? Ha!
djc49 wrote: ..It's a shame that you do not allow for anything but the bare bones of Scripture! ..
Look at my moniker. Yes I insist that everything which we believe should be derived directly from Scripture. No philosophical conjecturing should bind anyone's conscience! Otherwise, why quibble at Rome's innovations? By your reasoning we should be able to accept trans-substantiation provided we can justify philosophically how the bread and wine can be made flesh and blood!
And I thought you were going to justify Nicea scripturally! Oh well..
John UK wrote: I always thought that it was 'catholic' rather than 'Catholic' so that no-one misinterpreted it? I notice that no-one seems at all interested in these so-called historic 'Bible' verses that are now available on line to view. GOOD!
No John, the references from the early days, before the corruptions of Rome, were to the Church Catholic.
Even the Reformers referred to the Holy Catholic Church, all the while combating the Roman Catholic Church.
Hidemi Williges wrote: Out of curiosity, what do you mean catholic but not RCC? Do you mean like Mel Gibson's type of catholicism?
No Hidemi that is not what I mean.
The visible Churches are particular Churches, over whom the Lord is the immediate head.
But there is another aspect of the Church's existence which is expressed by the term Catholic. Catholicity refers to the universality of the church. A church that is spread through all the world.
Did you know that 7 of the epistles in the NT were called the Catholic Epistles? They were not addressed to any individual church but were intended for all churches viz. James, I and II Peter, I, II, and III John, and Jude.
djc49 wrote: It's understandable how ANYONE could have a "problem" with the term "generates" since we humans work within the matrix of time and cause & effect. It's all we know. It's all we can truly comprehend. ... You over-react to anything "Catholic."
This is what Charles Hodge understood by the term "generate":
"That it was the person not the essence of the Son that was generated. The essence is self-existent and eternal, but the person of the Son is generated (i.e. He becomes a person) by the communication to Him of the divine essence."!
Hodge says He becomes a person by generation!! And Hodge had a problem with this!!
Perhaps you should start questioning your own understanding of these matters rather than smuggly pontificating on something which you clearly do not understand.
This is not about defending the Trinity or rejecting all things Roman Catholic. I am Trinitarian and Catholic (though not Roman)! It is about formulation of doctrines that find no support in the Scriptures!
If you think you have the capacity, why don't you start giving us a scriptural exposition to support every single Nicene point concerning the "eternal generation" of the Son! Once you have done that we can move on to "eternal procession"!
djc49 wrote: I do NOT read the concept of the Son having a beginning point into this "generation." The Son is co-eternal, NON-created, NON-derivitive, and forever co-existed/exists with the Father.
I understand about the not beginning bit, because the "generation" is an eternal process. BUT to say that Christ's person is not derived from the Father when the definition clearly states that the Father generates the person of the Son by communicating to Him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead!!
And more importantly where do you find any of this in the Bible?! Or is the Bible less important than Nicene philosophy?